US charges 4 men in plot to blow up JFK airport (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

Where did I say it? How does this effect the discussion on "racial profiling"

Which claim was bullshit.

A whole bunch of times. I never said it effected the discussion on racial profiling.

All of them.

 

[Tulipa]

So anyways, in 36 hours I'll be at JFK.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

So anyways, in 36 hours I'll be at JFK.

I guess we can still hope for another terrorist cell with a backup plan.

 

[Tulipa]

Or that the US is so overzealous that they're catching people too early and that's fairly good

Also, in regards to racial profiling I (a short blonde haired, blue eyed American) am always pulled aside to be searched more when I go through security. The last three times I've gone, I get pulled to the side and I have to take my shoes off, get frisked, the whole deal.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Or that the US is so overzealous that they're catching people too early and that's fairly good

Also, in regards to racial profiling I (a short blonde haired, blue eyed American) am always pulled aside to be searched more when I go through security. The last three times I've gone, I get pulled to the side and I have to take my shoes off, get frisked, the whole deal.

Last time I was over there everyone had to take off their shoes and everyone was frisked.

 

[BritneySpears]

Great job. Putting words into my mouth.

Firstly, I strongly oppose all acts of terrorism and unless you can prove I've said anything which contradicts this claim, then you would be incorrect to make that statement again.

You frequently justified islamic terrorist attacks calling it a response to western policies towards the Middle East, while terrorists targeted not only america or UK but also all islamic countries, the way you justified and condoned their actions shows your indifference towards the victim and your support for terrorism.

I pretty much made that argument redundant, since all terrorists aim is to attack civilians. A terrorist attack is an attack on civilians, which have been employed by the U.S, the Israelis and the British alike.

US, Israelis or UK DID NOT aimed at civilian, they aimed at terrorists and enemy targets, however civilians were killed in the process. On the otherhand Islamic terrorists SOLELY targeted civilian to kill as many civilians as they can.

Again, I've made that argument redundant. It's not a terrorist attack unless it specifically targets civilians.

Exactly, since only muslim terrorists targeted civilians, they are terrorists.

There are different factions of Islamic terrorists who do attack other sects in order to gain power. Also, there are those caught in the middle of different sects who seek to retaliate on other sectarian comminities. If you look at the correlation between "Western Caused" instability, and "Sectarian Violence" you will see a strong link.

Long before Islam was known to the west or America was founded, Muslims already massacred eachother on the basis of sectarian lines. The West did not cause sectarian violence, it is a 1000 years old violence between muslims themselves gone worse because they dont have ruthless dictator to oppress them.

However, you seem to have missed the point of this thread. You made a statement which claimed that profiling of muslim people can be a detterent for terrorism. I claimed that by doing so it would only inconvenience people with an Arabic appearance. It would be more efficient if everybody was equally inconvenienced because "muslim terrorists" are not always arab. It is as ideal rather than a race, and even as a detterent "profiling/discriminating" against Arab people would not be a perfect method. (As I've explained, muslims are White, Asian, Hispanic, Black and Arab.)

I said profiling in sensitive security areas such as Airport and Nuclear Plants will make it safer for the west, as we already witnessed in this JFK Plot that one of the suspect arrested was a baggage Handler at JFK. This practice is NOT new and it might have already implemented quietly. It is better to be safe than politically correct.

Another fine example is here;

Some 72 airport staff, mostly Muslims, have lost their security clearance at France's main airport, Charles de Gaulle in Paris, since May 2005.

They pose a risk because of alleged links to groups with "potentially terrorist aims", officials say. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6108574.stm

The french got it right at last!

Your third point is completely redundant. UK/US/Israel have performed terrorist attacks on the middle east.

According to your definition of terrorism, no one agreed with you even arabs countries. You cannot even quote a single sourcew of terror acts committed by US, UK or Israel on the middle east.

No it wasn't. The use of a nuclear weapon to demonstrate its capabilities would have been beneficial to the Japanese people. But targetting a widely populated civilian area, was in no way beneficial to the Japanese.

Hiroshima was a war time military industrial complex, a perfectly legitimate. If the US wanted to kill widely populated civilian areas like islamic terrorists it would have targeted Tokyo,Osaka, Yokohama and other bigger and more populated cities. Even the bombing target committee said Here

Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect"

Dont put words into my mouth. I did not ever say it was acceptable for terrorists to bomb civilians for any reason. I said the culmination of Western Policies/Oppresion on the Middle-East is a cause for terrorism.



Don't put words into my mouth, don't misquote me, and reference everything you're going to say if you're going to continue making weighty accussations which are groundless. Conjecture is not a 'valid' method of debating.

There is NO western oppression on the middle east, these terrorists wanted to turn the middle east into an islamic caliphate which is NOT even acceptable for the people in the middle east. They clearly stated their aim and the reason they are fighting for that is Islam. They wanted to turn the world into islamic empire. They attacked anyone who disagrees with them whether they are muslims or not. And you actually believed their propaganda that they fight because the west oppress them is a serious concern for this country. As this news article fresh from the Australian rightly mentioned.

Muslim students shopping around for fatwas
Richard Kerbaj

June 05, 2007 08:28am

Article from:
Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

AUSTRALIAN Muslim university students eager to become jihadis are regularly seeking advice from Islamic spiritual leaders in the hope of winning religious approval to travel overseas and fight.

Leaders have warned that the obsession among some young Muslims to become holy warriors was also driving them to "shop around" for fatwas - religious rulings - should their initial request be turned down.

Moderate Sydney-based Islamic cleric Khalil Shami said young Muslims, "predominantly university students", frequently asked his advice on travelling to war-torn countries to fight in the name of Islam. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21853564-421,00.html?from=public_rss

Are you one of them?

 

[Born2baplacebo]

I pretty much made that argument redundant, since all terrorists aim is to attack civilians. A terrorist attack is an attack on civilians, which have been employed by the U.S, the Israelis and the British alike.


No it wasn't. The use of a nuclear weapon to demonstrate its capabilities would have been beneficial to the Japanese people. But targetting a widely populated civilian area, was in no way beneficial to the Japanese.

.

Thank god for some intelligence in this thread.

 

[BritneySpears]

Thank god for some intelligence in this thread.

what exactly is intelligent about accusing UK/US/Israel of comitting terrorism while he have not provided a single source? Your lacks of intelligence in analyzing is rather disturbing.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

what exactly is intelligent about accusing UK/US/Israel of comitting terrorism while he have not provided a single source? Your lacks of intelligence in analyzing is rather disturbing.

So is yours when it comes to anaylzing the bullshit that comes out of your mouth sometimes.

It's called racial profiling. Don't know what it is? Just click here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

And what source? Common fucking knowledge.

 

[BritneySpears]

So is yours when it comes to anaylzing the bullshit that comes out of your mouth sometimes.

It's called racial profiling. Don't know what it is? Just click here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

And what source? Common fucking knowledge.

His post you qouted and called intelligent have nothing to do with racial profiling. it is baseless accusation of UK/USA/Israel of comitting terrorism while Ignorning close to 1 million people killed by muslim terrorists world wide.


Racial profiling at sensitive work place is already done in Charles De Gaulle international Airport in Paris. If you know where Paris is.

Paris airport bars 72 employees

Some 72 airport staff, mostly Muslims, have lost their security clearance at France's main airport, Charles de Gaulle in Paris, since May 2005. They pose a risk because of alleged links to groups with "potentially terrorist aims", officials say

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6108574.stm

 

[Born2baplacebo]

May I remind you linking back to the original topic up for discussion:

This made racial profiling perfectly justified when it comes to employment in sensitive areas such as Airport, nuclear power plants etc where one dishonest employee can inflict maximum damage.

What is more chilling is the involvement of an ex- MP from Guyana.

Critics argue that race should:

• never be considered for any reason in a police action (save the exceptions made below).
• never be considered the primary or motivating factor for suspicion.
• only be considered when it is used to describe a specific suspect in a specific crime and only when used in a manner like other physical descriptions (e.g., hair color, weight, distinguishing marks). This is often referred to as the "be on the lookout" (B.O.L.O.) exception.
• even if race could be helpful, use of race may cause many more errors where the actual offender happened not to fit the race predicted by the model and law enforcement fails to capture the suspect.

It is sometimes necessary to consider racial factors in a way that may not be immediately apparent from the above when dealing with hate crimes and the like, though it is very rare to think of situations where racial profiling would aid police decision making in this context.
Some groups argue that if a disproportional number of members of a race are, for example, stopped, searched, or arrested, compared to the general population or to other races, it is due to discrimination. Some also suggest that, in the United States, the government does not have the right to conduct racial profiling. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the vast majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that all US citizens be treated equally under the law. It has been argued that this makes it unconstitutional for a representative of the government to make decisions based on race. This view has been upheld by the US Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky and several other cases.
Some groups also argue that police who focus their limited attention on one racial group allow criminals from other racial groups to go free. In the days immediately following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, law enforcement spent a disproportionate amount of time and resources on two men of middle eastern descent. It turned out that this terrorist attack was perpetrated by a white male; if the terrorist had planned more than one attack, the waste of limited resources investigating men of middle eastern descent could have cost lives.
In Los Angeles in December of 2001, a man of Middle Eastern descent named Assem Bayaa cleared all the security checks in the airport. He was an American citizen and he got on a plane to New York. He had barely gotten settled in his seat when he was told that he made the crew uncomfortable by being on board the plane. Once Bayaa got off the plane, he wasn't searched or questioned any further. The only consolation he was given was a boarding pass for the next flight to New York. The luggage he had checked wasn't even taken off the plane he was originally on. He filed a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against United Airlines, who filed a motion that said that because of national security, they don't have to obey civil rights protection laws. The motion was dismissed on October 11, 2002. The district judge ruled that a pilot's discretion "does not grant them a license to discriminate," (The Advocate, Santa Clara University School of Law Newsletter).
Racial profiling involves police use of race as a key factor in decisions to stop and interrogate people. More specifically, it can be defined as "the practice of constructing a set of characteristics or behaviors based on race and using that set of characteristics to decide whether an individual might be guilty of some crime and therefore worthy of investigation or arrest," (McGraw Hill Online Learning Center). In airports, racial profiling is sometimes used to pick who to search more carefully and extensively than everyone else. If a person's physical features look like those specific to someone of Middle Eastern descent, then they're generally more likely to be stopped and searched thoroughly than someone who has the physical features of a European person. It has also been pointed out that many Arabs and South Asians resemble South (and occasionally even North) Europeans. Racial profiling has raised a lot of controversy over whether it's constitutional.

In the United States, racial profiling of minorities by law enforcement officials has been called racial discrimination.[3] As early as 1866, the Civil Rights Act provided a remedy for intentional race discrimination in employment by private employers and state and local public employers. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 applies to public employment or employment involving state action prohibiting deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution or federal laws through action under color of law. Title VII is the principal federal statute with regard to employment discrimination prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination by public and private employers, labor organizations, training programs and employment agencies based on race or color, religion, sexiness, and national origin. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against any person for opposing any practice forbidden by statute, or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participating in a proceeding under the statute. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded the damages available in Title VII cases and granted Title VII plaintiffs the right to a jury trial. Title VII also provides that race and color discrimination against every race and color is prohibited, including whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asians.
In the UK the inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence accused the police of institutional racism.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

^^^ What does that prove? I could just as easily bombard you with information supporting racial profiling.

I don't disagree that racial profiling is discrimination but what other choice is there. It is easy to be critical of something without providing any alternative... I noticed none of what you posted had any suggestions.

It is impossible to check every single passenger and airport staff member to the extent that we can be 100% sure that they are not carrying some kind of weapon or explosive... There are simply not enough resources and even if there were it would be ridiculously inefficient.

It may be discrimination but what other option is there. I'll take any realistic alternative... with a strong emphasis on realistic. The only other one I can think of is to just take the risk and hope nothing happens.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

all muslims... big surprise.

May I remind you that this is racial profiling.

In the days immediately following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, law enforcement spent a disproportionate amount of time and resources on two men of middle eastern descent. It turned out that this terrorist attack was perpetrated by a white male; if the terrorist had planned more than one attack, the waste of limited resources investigating men of middle eastern descent could have cost lives.

May I remind you, that this directly relates to racial profiling. Just because they are arab, doesn't make them a muslim. Look at David Hicks, he's white and he's a muslim and no one would have suspected him if no one had found out that he wasn't muslim.

 

[BritneySpears]

May I remind you that this is racial profiling.



May I remind you, that this directly relates to racial profiling. Just because they are arab, doesn't make them a muslim. Look at David Hicks, he's white and he's a muslim and no one would have suspected him if no one had found out that he wasn't muslim.

May I remind you that I suggested racial profiling in sensitive areas such as Nuclear Plants and Airport, not in everyday daily lives such as you unecessarily copied and pasted from wikipedia.

Your copying of a whole article from Wikipedia does not makes you any more intelligent without any input from your own words. We know it is bad to be discriminated in ordinary daily lives however employment in nuclear plants and airport DOES NOT effect all muslims or all arabs. It affects very very few muslims, as in the case of France, a nation of 64million Just 72 muslims are affected by racial profiling by the French Airport Authority out of 5 million muslims in france.

May I remind you, that this directly relates to racial profiling. Just because they are arab, doesn't make them a muslim. Look at David Hicks, he's white and he's a muslim and no one would have suspected him if no one had found out that he wasn't muslim.

How many white australians became muslim terrorist? Out of 20 million you can only find one. I challenge you to find a white terrorist who is muslim and involved in hundreds of terrorists acts committed during the past 20 years.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

May I remind you that this is racial profiling.

You have got to be kidding. They were caught and they were all muslim. It's not racial profiling its a fact. They don't look muslim, THEY ARE MUSLIM.

Why did you not respond to my last post? Do you have no response? Are you looking for a response to copy from Wikipedia? Provide a realistic alternative or shut up.

 

[lexie85]

oh dear me, so many naive (stupid ? ) people

not all arabs=muslims and vice-versa, so yeah where does racial profiling go then

oh i wish these terrorists would get smart and use some non-arab people in their attacks, lol lol :rofl:

 

[iamsickofyear12]

oh dear me, so many naive (stupid ? ) people

not all arabs=muslims and vice-versa, so yeah where does racial profiling go then

oh i wish these terrorists would get smart and use some non-arab people in their attacks, lol lol :rofl:

but since all recent terrorists are muslim most of them are arab
and all of them don't have to be arab to be able to use racial profiling to catch the ones that are

it may be called racial profiling but it's not always as simple as just race. There are other factors like behaviour.

 

[lexie85]

but since all recent terrorists are muslim most of them are arab
and all of them don't have to be arab to be able to use racial profiling to catch the ones that are

it may be called racial profiling but it's not always as simple as just race. There are other factors like behaviour.

im talking more about the 'racial profiling' you and aryan have been carrying on about

 

[iamsickofyear12]

im talking more about the 'racial profiling' you and aryan have been carrying on about

The first part of the post still stands.

I didn't mention anything like behaviour before because I think racial profiling is justifyable based only on appearance... but it is still part of the profiling they do at airports.

 

[lexie85]

The first part of the post still stands.

I didn't mention anything like behaviour before because I think racial profiling is justifyable based only on appearance... but it is still part of the profiling they do at airports.

okay do you realise how many muslims there are, that you would never in a million years know they are muslim, just by looking at them